Between the Storms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding


John 3rd -> Between the Storms (6/19/2014 2:20:30 PM)

Over the last few years the Reluctant Admiral Design Team has worked to create a Mod that is a fine, rationalized ALTNAV History of 'what might have been' with the rise of Adm Yamamoto Isoroku to Naval Minister of Japan in 1938. Recently work has led in the direction of adding a Treaty Mod featuring ALTNAV history of slight changes to the Washington--London Naval Treaties in 1922 and 1930. Finally, discussion led the logical amalgamation of BOTH early Mods into a new complete ALTNAV for the twenty years preceding Dec 7th.

As the ideas have developed other items have crept into the vision:
1. The desire to make all three fully integrated into DaBabes Mod changes and innovations.
2. The addition of off-map bases (as discussed in Juan and John's threads recently) to allow for a desperate Allied commander to 'buy out' EMERGENCY air frames to help stem the tide of the Japanese Steamroller.
3. A need to make it so China does not easily fall to either the Japanese OR Allied Player without tremendous effort.

The main contributors to this recent effort have--so far--been Juan, John (JWE/Symon), and Michael (NYGiants). Others have been providing ideas and great thoughts and we truly appreciate that. The lion's share of the current work is being done, cheerfully I might add, by John to fold the current RA into DaBabes-C.

To understand the 'vision' of this project here is a copy of an email I just sent to Michaela and John:


I want provide the ‘grand vision’ so all three of us are on the same page.

When this is all finished we shall have THREE new/updated Mods. ALL of them will be based on the current DB-C files. For simplicity we’ll number them 50—55—60:

Scenario 50 The Treaty Mod
This will be created on my currently downloaded DB-C. It is pure vanilla Dec 7th with the only changes coming in the form of new ships added through the tweaks/changes to the Washington/London Naval Treaties. This Mod is easiest since it just involves adding about 10 ships to the OOB for Japan/USA/GB-Aust. Piece of cake.

Scenario 55 The Reluctant Admiral
The current iteration of RA is 6.7. Once you get done brining it forward and fully into DB-C Michael and I will go through everything (location, location, location) to make it a total copy of the current 6.7. We will then name it 7.0. The 6.7 is finished and not to be worked on again. We’ll continue maintenance of RA only on 7.0+. Here is the heavy lifting. You have a crapload of work to do (as a fantastic volunteer!) moving everything and making sure it is DB updated. Once your hard work is done Michael and I bring it home and we are good.

Scenario 60 Between the Storms
Between the Storms will take all the work in 50 and 55 and combine them into a full revamp of ALTNAV History covering Washington Treaty, London Treaty, and the rise of Adm Yamamoto (1921-1941). Michael and I copy RA 7.0 and then add all Scenario 50 additions. This shall also be fairly easy since it is just adding those few new vessels to the OOB. This Mod will be FUN! Lots of toys added to the vision of RA and you’ll have one heck of a high body/dead ship count. Mmmmmmm...yummy!

Scen 50—55—60 will also feature the additional off map bases as talked about by Juan and you for the providing the ability of the Allied Commander to make ‘emergency’ purchases of Allied airframes. This will have a steep PP cost but it allows for more flexibility and/or choice for the Allied player. Think it shall be a great addition to all three Mods.

OK. That is the VISION and DIRECTION of things. Does that help to provide a ‘big picture’ of where we are going?

What do ya think fellas?

Adm Cochran

Just thought the Modding community as well as the players might like to know what is happening.

It is my intention that ALL RA--Treaty--Between the Storms discussion now place in this thread. Since all three are inter-related it only makes sense for the discussion to move here.

Come along and have some fun AE Fans!

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/19/2014 2:30:07 PM)

I have brought all the pertinent threads forward so they are grouped together.

btd64 -> RE: Between the Storms (6/19/2014 5:55:31 PM)

John, Looks like #60 is the one that I may be waiting for. And also, if you need a tester, let me know. I'm at your disposal. By the way, I started to play around with the editor. Interesting. GP

Kitakami -> RE: Between the Storms (6/19/2014 10:28:53 PM)

Although I just started playing a 2 days per turn pbem scenario 55, I am looking forward to where scenario 60 is going. I will gladly do what I can to help :)

DOCUP -> RE: Between the Storms (6/19/2014 10:39:18 PM)

I'm looking for scen 69.[:'(]

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/20/2014 2:14:33 AM)

Here was the beginning thoughts of the Treaty Mod:

Spoke with Michael about an idea I had earlier this week to create a new Grand Campaign based on a slightly different set of results with the Washington and London Naval Treaties. For those who don't know, this is a favored area of mine as my Master Thesis in History was on the US Fleet during the Treaty Years of 1921-1936.

The idea that I am stewing on is that Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Conference for a full year. The Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu Debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. New arguements:

1. The Japanese then argue to keep either a Tosa or a pair of the Amagi Class BCs. If they win then the Americans and British get their corresponding ships as well.

2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked with all sorts of possibilities:
a. Allow two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's)
b. Allow for two BC conversions but add further treaty tonnage to allow for one more CV to be built by both Japan and USA.
c. The original view was that 10,000T and smaller CVs wouldn't count against treaty tonnage. Perhaps that gets a change?
d. Submarines could be another topic examined for changes in the treaty.

Moving on to the London Conference (1930) and the subject of Cruisers could also provide furtile ground for a 'what if' set of changes:
1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). Would the Naval Powers allow for this to keep the peace for five more years?
2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs.
3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser--CVs. Perhaps 1-2 are allowed in the interests of allowing speculation? This is the CLV Charlotte in Reluctant Admiral.

The COOL thing about this Mod is that is would be balanced. If Japan gets Tosa then USA adds1-2 new BBs that were originally scrapped. If Japan gets two of the Amagi BCs then USA gets...

American Additions:
CV Lexington
CV Saratoga

CVL King's Mountain

Built off the lessons learned from the failed real life Ranger. This CVL is a proto-Yorktown Class of 13,000T carrying 54 planes (18 F4F, 18 SBD, and 18 TBD) and cruiser speed.

CLV-1 Charlotte
CLV-2 Jacksonville

These hybrids carry 3x3 6", 8x1 5", have St Louis Class Armor, and 24 Planes (12 F4F and 12 SBD). Will be allowed to convert into Independence Class CVLs.

Lexington-Class BCs
CC-1 Ranger
CC-2 Constellation

CA Burlington
CA Rome

St Louis-Class
CL Anchorage
CL Dallas

Will add 4 more Somer's-Class DDs as well as an equal number of Benham-Class. Could use some additional names for these DDs. Want to use Walker and Mahan for two of them. Six are open for naming...

Japanese Additions:
Akagi (Sister Ships)

Ryukaku (Single deck hangar CVL with Air Complement of 27 planes) the design is successful and becomes the proto-Hiryu Class and all subsequent Japanese CVLs. Ryujo is built as is and becomes a failed design. Ryukaku succeeds as a more 'realistic' CVL for tonnage left.

CVE (Experimental)
Hosho (Sister Ships)

Ishitaka Amagi-Class BC.

CLV (Hybrid Cruiser Carriers)
______________ (Need Names reflecting their hybrid nature. SUGGESTIONS?)

15,000 T, 3x3 6" Guns, 6x1 5" Secondary, Cruiser Speed, reasonable armor (along Mogami Class CL), designed for 54 planes but carries 42 at this point in time (21 Zero and 21 Kate OR 24 Zero and 18 Kate OR 27 Zero and 15 Kate). The ships may be converted into Hiryu-Class CVs starting in summer 1942. Figure a 6-12 month conversion. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Japanese Cruisers
OK. We are gonna play the 'tonnage' game for Japanese CAs. In this Mod the following happens to the 'traditional' Japanese CAs and the year they were completed:

1. MYOKO: Myoko (29), Nachi (28), Haguro (29), Ashigara (29), Seiki (29), Chishima(30), Miyako (30), and Yoshino (30) . They are 10,000 T: 80,000 T
2. TAKAO: Takao (32), Atago (32), Maya (32), and Chokai (32). They are 9,850 T: 39,400 T

Taking Myoko and Nachi equals 119,400 T leaving (with a Treaty Tonnage of 122,500). The Japanese expand the Myoko's into a class of eight ships. New names are above in Italics/Bolded.

As to Third and Fourth Circle Plans I would have two CAs authorized per plan. These would not be Tone's but reflect Japan's shift towards the triple turret. The Niitaka-Class CA mounts 4x3 8" guns. Displacement would surge to about 13,000 T. They are a perfect example of 'using a few to conquer many.' There are designs for this class over in Ship Bucket and we planned to use them in the Perfect War Mod. The first pair would be Tone and Chikuma (available at war's start) followed by two more pairs from the plans (due in 1942 and 1944)...

Total PRE-WAR Build for CAs: 14 with 4 building.

Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma and Tama are converted to Fast Mine-Layers.
Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso become Training Cruisers and, thus, no need to build the Katori Class.
NAGARA: Nagara, Isuzu, Yura, Natori, Kinu, and Abukuma remain classified as CLs rated at 5,170 T: 31,020 T.
SENDAI: Naka, Sendai, Jintsu, and Minase rated at 5,195 T: 20,780 T
FURUTAKA: Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, and Kinugasa 7,500 T: 30,000 T.
MOGAMI: Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano 8,500 T: 34,000 T.

Total tonnage is 115,800. Authorized Tonnage is 112,000. So Japan is slightly over, however, she is slightly under for CAs so we'll call this good.

In production, starting with 3rd and 4th Circle is a reduced size-Mogami Class CL of 3x3 6", good Torps, and about 8,000 T.

Total PRE-WAR CLs: 18 with 8 Building.

The Total Cruiser tonnage is 235,200 allowed by Treaty with 234,500 ACTUAL when Treaty is abandoned.

Empire Additions:
Hawkins Class CLV:
HMAS Melbourne
HMS Vindictive

The British are authorized to build two BC by the Washington Conference Treaty. Figure those would go to the Atlantic for the war BUT could Britain TRANSFER something to reinforce Force Z with another Capital Ship? If so, then which?

Would add a few Dds to provide some form of screening ships...

DOCUP -> RE: Between the Storms (6/20/2014 2:34:32 AM)

Looks good. Would you let us read your Thesis?  I can't remember will the Hawkins CLVs convert to a CVL? I also like adding Juans AC mod.

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/20/2014 3:54:46 AM)

All the CLVs would have conversion possibilities. The Japanese can upgrade to a Soryu/Hiryu-Class CV (designed that way), the Charlotte will convert to an Independence size CVL, and Hawkins along the lines of a Hermes. These are my initial ideas. Not set yet on just exactly the layout and probable class. We have to finish designing them AS a CVL and then what they would do AS a full-fledged CV.

Juan's idea for off map bases allowing 'purchase' of aircraft is brilliant. I love the entire idea so it will be fully incorporated within all three Mods.

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/21/2014 1:44:58 PM)

Have my Mother and Sister in for the weekend so am not doing much work. Once they blast back to Kansas on Monday we'll get to some serious work on this.

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 1:18:53 PM)

John (JWE/Symon) has gotten the re-worked files back to us and Michael is going through them. Here is what was sent:

Ok, sounds good. Here's a snapshot of where we are right now. The enclosed files have everything from the absolute latest of DBB-C except for the locations file. Details follow.

Devices: These will be new because they include the stuff that make the new PI/OZ/NZ/DU toes and oobs work. I made sure to include your French weapons and tweaked your AA and DP numerics so that they conform. These new devices will make your LCU stuff look ugly just now, but bear with me.

Classes: Done to the latest and greatest standards. Fuel, endurance, cargo and troop capacities are up to snuf.

Ships: Same for ships, except we vetted every vessel to make sure they conform to the "Class" rules. Also, all "new" ships come in with 0 fuel. Ships that enter the game from intermediate 'off-map' ports enter with 50% fuel. This is the answer to Andrew Brown's 'free fuel' issue.

Aircraft: Didn't need to do much. Done.

Airgroups: Didn't need to do much. Done.

TFs/Pilots/Leaders/Scenario: Yours look like they will work well. May have some issues with leaders when the locations file gets re-done, but I think that's a detail that you guys can handle.

Locations: This is the biggie, and one that will take a couple days to craft out righteously. There's all the new bases in the file, but the TO&Es and OOBs aren't done yet. It won't take too long to do the Allied stuff, but we've been working with Japanese TO&Es and OOBs for a long time and think it worthwhile to port our tweaks in. That means we have to do your OOB tweaks on a case by case basis. Can do it. Know how. Just wanna know if you are on-board with it.

So the files have everything except the locations things. I would like for you guys to vet what we have done and raise any questions or comments that come up.

The locations file will be the subject of a very different set of communications.

Ciao. John

Now the boring but important work of cleaning things up and working the locations folder begins...

ny59giants -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 1:38:28 PM)

I did a brief look over of the new files for RA and I'm awaiting the next series of emails from Symon/JWE to clarify what needs to be done in the Location files. Some the the integration was done, but that will be the part that needs "tender loving care" in the days ahead.

I would like to add FatR (Stanislov) to those who have done yeomen work on RA. Both John and Stanislov did a lot of the initial design work and I was just on sidelines at the beginning.

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 2:02:47 PM)

Stanislav was/is one of the main driving forces in this project. Life has been very busy with him for quite some time and he has only been able to peek in from time-to-time. We miss his input within the projects.

Just started working on transferring the BCs (as done by Juan) into a 'standard' DB-C Template. Will then shift to all the CLVs. Onc ethose are complete then we have the fun of shifting over to some locations work of Dec 7th and then Treaty Mod is complete.

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 2:42:41 PM)

Am getting ready to go to church and thought I would put out a laundry list of things to do for the Treaty Mod:

1. Import BC Classes
2. Create all CLVs and their CV conversion binds as well as air groups.
3. Do the fleet redeployment reflecting these ships as additions to the various navies.
4. Add aircraft production to Australia so they can keep the Melbourne active with aircraft.
5. Re-work Japanese CA and CLs as detailed above.
6. Add the additional American DDs to the fleet and deploy them.

Am probably missing things that will become apparent once work gets rolling...

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 7:07:25 PM)

RockMedic109 made an interesting comment in another thread that caught my attention.

Make Pennsylvania come it on Dec 8 with SYS damage to represent the bomb hits and some Major Engine Damage {I believe her propellers were off at the time of the attack}: This so she doesn't soak up Torp hits while in dry dock.

This idea has some merit. What do readers think of it? If you like it what do you think the damage value should be at?

Connfire -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 8:23:07 PM)


ORIGINAL: John 3rd

RockMedic109 made an interesting comment in another thread that caught my attention.

Make Pennsylvania come it on Dec 8 with SYS damage to represent the bomb hits and some Major Engine Damage {I believe her propellers were off at the time of the attack}: This so she doesn't soak up Torp hits while in dry dock.

This idea has some merit. What do readers think of it? If you like it what do you think the damage value should be at?

I like it. Makes a lot of sense to me.

IRL, she left Pearl on December 20, arrived in San Francisco 9 days later, and was under repair until March 30. So that comes out to almost exactly 3 months in the shipyard. I'm still quite new to this game so I'm assuming others would be more adept at estimating what that would translate into as far as system and engine damage.

btd64 -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 9:20:33 PM)

John, Sys damage about 60+/- and eng around 30 or so. The idea for 0 fuel when a ship arrives is a good one.[:)]

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 10:16:22 PM)

That is pretty heavy damage GP. I was thinking SYS-40-50 and ENG 10-20.

What do others think?

ZERO fuel makes a ton of sense to me!

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 10:17:06 PM)

Have been working on the Treaty Mod and have imported Amagi, Constitution, and Charlotte Classes so far.


btd64 -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 10:50:02 PM)


ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That is pretty heavy damage GP. I was thinking SYS-40-50 and ENG 10-20.

What do others think?

ZERO fuel makes a ton of sense to me!

Yeah, well I was thinking about the last ship I had with 90 days damage and you are right. 40/15 maybe. GP

wdolson -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 10:54:49 PM)

I know you're going to up carrier aircraft production to account for more decks, but there were a couple of changes in production in the real war the current stock scenarios don't take into account.

Near the end of 1942, the PBY-5 went out of production. The equivalent Lend Lease model was still produced for the RN because they liked the longer range of the pure flying boat, but the USN liked the flexibility of the -5A. There was a small handful of British Catalinas that were diverted to the USN in 1943. These would be equivalent to the -5, but all other PBYs delivered to the USN until the -6 were -5As. So the -5 should go out of production in late 42 and -5A production should increase to essentially fill the gap. Unfortunately the game engine can't quite handle that. You could bring another PBY into production then with the same specs as the -5A, but a different slot.

It would be great if we had factories with a delay (I think it is doable in the code, it's just never been done). I can't look at it right now, I'm scrambling this weekend to get a new work computer ready to go by Monday. I hate setting up new computers, so much to install and configure...

The other change is SBD production. The -4 went into production in August of 1942 and Douglas essentially doubled production output at that time. The -4 had a 24V electrical system (the -3 had a 12V) and used a constant speed propeller. The propeller probably improved performance a little, but I've never seen it in the specs. The biggest change was the knee in airframes produced. By the end of 1942, the Marines finally had plenty of SBDs. They had been in chronic short supply before then.

The first batch of -4s were used in the Torch invasion, but all of the survivors were diverted to the Pacific soon after. The CVEs from Torch went to the Pacific soon after and Air Group 9 which was on the Ranger for that op was put into training for the Essex afterwards. Their aircraft were swapped out for older aircraft for training. I believe Torch was the last time the Ranger operated dive bombers.

I have a chart with exact numbers for PBY production broken down by year and model. It's in the back of the Squadron PBY in Action book.

Those two were the only two Allied production anomalies I've found. Both are there to some extent because of limitations in the game engine.


John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 11:10:06 PM)

Hey Bill. I will run with that.

If you find more info PLEASE keep me up on it.

ny59giants -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 11:11:28 PM)

If you could send John and me the info on the PBY-5A and the SBD-4s, then we could look at them. The easy solution on the PBY-5As would be to add them to the CS convoys that come into Cape Town monthly and add them into the pool at beginning of month when they disband.

Screenshot info from

We could use data from A-24A banshee as that was the Army's version of the -4.


wdolson -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 11:41:52 PM)

I'll dig it out.

You could also add aircraft by having a squadron show up in the Eastern US once a month with a withdraw date a few days later. The player would have to withdraw them manually, but it is another way to pump airframes into the game.


John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/22/2014 11:45:33 PM)

Got the Charlotte conversion done. Decided to make her conversion into its own class. They are similar to the Independence-Class CVL but unique. To keep confusion at bay, they are named after the second ship in the class. Nothing is set. If you have opinions---sound off:


NOTE: I changed the arrival date to as early as 10-42.

DOCUP -> RE: Between the Storms (6/23/2014 12:43:48 AM)

Looks good guys.  I do like the Penn showing up on Dec 8th idea.  I was thinking what about uping the PPs 55 or 60 for both sides and what about increasing mine production for both sides?

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/23/2014 12:48:24 AM)

The biggest concern I have with pulling Pennsie is that the Japanese divert their attacks from her (in normal attack) to other ships...

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/23/2014 12:50:19 AM)


ORIGINAL: wdolson

I'll dig it out.

You could also add aircraft by having a squadron show up in the Eastern US once a month with a withdraw date a few days later. The player would have to withdraw them manually, but it is another way to pump airframes into the game.


We COULD add them to the off map bases and they could be 'bought out.' Naaaw...better to have them trickle in.

Raising the PP to 60 would be OK with me.

DOCUP -> RE: Between the Storms (6/23/2014 12:50:24 AM)

True, she does suck up some TTs and bombs that would prob screw up the Dec 7 results.

ny59giants -> RE: Between the Storms (6/23/2014 12:58:22 AM)

The last version of RA had PP set for 55 while the one I was playing was 60. I like the 60 as it gets me to upgrade leaders more frequently. The AI likes to assign the worse to some units. [;)]

John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (6/23/2014 4:10:57 AM)

Sounds like 60 is a plan.

Working on the g.6 right now.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI